Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-06-13 Conservation Commission Minutes / V r CO N'!moi E'RV t"4,'l".I O . : S C ' NORTH, ANDOVElt MASSACHUSETTS 01845 9 Minutes of" meeting , June 13, 1973- Present : 7 -present : Members Resca , Chepulis, Lewis, lafond, Kittredge , Trombly. kssoc_iate members Worthen, Tura o , Finko �1 Absent : ' Angela. `� � Visitors : Mr. eTour 2 "C Johnson St. Mr. Lall o 245 Johnson Sto ap Called to order at 8:08p4m. General discussion on the Johnson Circle Development. Mr. Detour presented a letter addressed to him from Matthew Connelly of the DNR regarding Johnson Circle. It stated that the state Comm,issioner may not intervene until the Conservation Commission issues an ordeh of conditions. Also) "The Conservation Commission should not allow any wok on the project until. 60 days has elapsed. " Arthur lesca reported on a phone conversation, he had with a Mr. Scalinari in the state Attorney General' s Environmental Protection division. ; calinarr was concerned as to how much area would be affected by construction and what damages would occur to the lowlands. lie said that if we think the amount of damage is negligible we could allow construction. However, we could strep the project for the 60 days if we feel it necessary. Mr. Detour replied that he would life to see the Commission get all. the data necessary before any work takes place. He feels that 60 days gives the Commission time to consider all alternatives. lie also brought up the arbitrary figure of 50 feet which was reported by the local pap" r^ as the distance to which 'a developer c,.> could work on either side of a stream. He does not feel that this gives adequate protection to the water supply. Mr. Lally reporter' that other communities are very adamant in sticking to the 60 day moratorium. Mr. Worthen cited a failure on the part of the developer to provide adequate rata. The responsibility rests on his (developers) sL.AVA.A �}y^.,} Y l,���r-��r. n p J "fir. Chepu t a s reminded the Commission that we requested that the engineerin, dai: q and brook profile which were presented be s i •neQ b hn en �i ra utas ,., �, �, nee this been done y ? arm Abca :; 10o. °° P "^,. Tucano brou,^``rt up the ctonver ati.on at the very end of the heariLr, June Hr,. Willis had asked if work could be started on the upper section. He Willis ) said that he would meet the: condi- tions he submitted regarding measures to be taken during construc- tion to prevent silting. It seemed to Mr. Turano that', we gave a ve alal'_ o k to begin Oe work He wondered if we would be held to that even if we changed our minds since it was liven at a legal hearing. Mr, Lally suggested that we might send a letter of clarifi- cation to developer elaborating our opinion can the development. Cir. Chepulis expressed the opinion that no definite o k was given. We were unsure of our authority at that time and thus came the phrase we can' t say no" (Tribune article) . shy didn' t we �I affirm our stand we had no sufficient background to support it. Now we have f-a view from a higher bodyb lased on .research and new findings we now feel that the 60 day moratorium a.pplys to enta.rn project. A new interpreiatibn has been brought to our attention. Now , we are supported by the DNR. Motion by ?fir. Chepul is : to write a letter to G.A.R. Corp. with a kj copy to he sant to their.: attorney explaining that the 60 day period of moratorium on construction is imposed by this Commission on the entire subdivision. This decision based upon recent advice and auidelines from the DNR. Motion seconded by T^"r. Frank Lewis. . Kotion passed on unanimous vote of members pre;enta Mrs . Kittredge was , instructed to write such a letter of clari- fication. This w:.a done during the meeting and then, read to the members for acceptance . The accepted letter may be found in the file for the Johnson Circle development. i 'WI fRWdSN Wxf✓4 14,.a tt �!lfv,.dam.,„ m ..,, .a,.ds b m„ .. 1 Discussion sr.on can dand nos. i.ble conditions to be set : "ra `l'urnano questioned whether we should proceed on this lire since the data had not been signed. Most of, the members felt that we could p nceerd and that if the data was not signed it was the developer er who held the risk Mr. Lally asked Nr. Tur ono for a general overview - h1 j opinion of the lata , ;speaking as an engineer. Mr. 'lurano felt that any const Mw ct,i on on the upper portion would definitely affect the flookpiains . He noted a lack of data on the .floodplain and the effects of, the proposed changes on the downstream trryeam area.. Mr. Chepul is stated that if we do, in fact , prohibit the moving s s set conditions on the other areas where c nd of the brooks ook,� we must t cr ,� they will have to fill in order to build. He also questioned if, we have they right to say no to 'building onv certain lots. Would that not. �.,b e a taking? Land is of no other use . Mr . °turano rebutted that current cases have upheld the use of land for flood contro O aesthetic value , etc . Mr. Pesca stated that we could seek a happy medium, that we are more of a police agency. We owe it to society to improve the environment but we must also uphold the rights of the builder. How far would the state back us up, if we prohibit building? Mrs. Trembly replied that we shouldn' t analyze each condition we set by how it will affect the bu.ilderY plans. The law gives us a specific order - to impose such conditions las will protect the environment and the public water supplye We should go about our analysis with this ir: mind and not be so overly concerned with the ultimate effect on the builders plan. MrA Fink felt that the N-S brook should not be toughed. The main brook'.. might be moved under certain conditions. Mr. Fink: requested that the board considered a possible location :for the model which is under construction. It should be finished by the enel of dune . He also provided information on possible acquisition of a tape recorder. Mr. `Purano presented a tentative set of instructions which we might employ r°erardi.ng the Hatch-Jones .pct. Meeting adjourned at 10 :20p.m. nom. .